Darwinismi - grundvallaður í vísindum eða studdur af heimspeki

Þetta hefði kannski átt að heita "mislukkuðu spá Darwins númer 5" en þar sem það var að rugla marga í ríminu þá sleppi ég þeim titli. Þetta er sant svar www.judgingpbs.com við darwiniskum áróðri PBS. 

Það sem margir darwinistar neita að sjá eða þræta fyrir eru tengsl darwinisma við guðleysi sem þá tegund af trú. Mjög margir darwinistar hafa opinberlega viðurkennt hvernig hugmyndir Darwins höfðu gífurleg áhrif á trúarhugmyndir almennings þannig að guðleysi jókst enda rökrétt út frá hugmyndafræðinni sjálfri.  Þess vegna virkar það afskaplega kjánalegt að neita þessu. Annað sem kom út frá þessu var sú hugmyndafræði að vísindin gætu ekki innifalið hugmyndina um Guð. Það er að segja að í sköpunarverkinu/raunveruleikanum má ekkert vera útskýrt vegna aðgerða Guðs. Sannleikurinn er sá að ef Guð er til og vísindi skilgreind þannig að Guð er útilokaður þá sitja vísindin eftir sem lygi sem lítið gagn er að.  Greinin fyrir neðan útskýrir þetta miklu betur en:

 

6. Darwinism: grounded in science
or propped by philosophy?

PBS observes that the famous 19th century naturalist, T.H. Huxley, declared that "evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention." But modern Darwinists have gone much further than Huxley. In Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."¹

America’s great champion of evolution, the late Stephen Jay Gould, similarly announced that “[b]efore Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,”² but because of Darwin’s ideas, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.”³ Richard Dawkins is Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and is probably the most famous evolutionist in the world. Yet Dawkins believes that God is a “delusion” and that "Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”⁶

Gould's and Dawkins's views are by no means uncommon among leading scientists. A 2007 editorial by the editors of the world's top scientific journal, Nature, stated that "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," and thus concluded, "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”⁴

Also noteworthy is the fact that key public defenders of Darwin involved in the Dover trial who were featured in PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary have strong ties to secular humanist groups. For example, Eugenie Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. She is also a public signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to create a world with “without supernaturalism” based upon the view that “[h]umans are… the result of unguided evolutionary change” and the universe is “self-existing.”⁵ Similarly, Dover plaintiffs’ expert Barbara Forrest, also featured in the PBS show, is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association.

Indeed, PBS-NOVA’s star theistic evolutionary biologist Ken Miller has claimed in five editions of his textbooks that evolution works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”⁷ Two additional editions of Miller’s textbooks state: “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.”⁸ Harvard paleontologist and author Richard Lewontin explains how this materialism is an overriding assumption propping Darwinian thought:

"[W]e have a prior commitment … to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations… [T]hat materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."⁹

Finally, leading Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse admits that “for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned … akin to being a secular religion” whose main doctrine is “a commitment to a kind of naturalism.”¹⁰ Is it possible that there is more propping up the support of Darwinism than the mere empirical evidence?

References Cited:
1. Francisco J. Ayala, "Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567–8573 (May 15, 2007) (emphasis added).
2. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, page 267 (W.W. Norton, 1977).
3. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, page 147 (W.W. Norton, 1977).
4. "Evolution and the brain," Nature, Vol. 447:753 (June 14, 2007).
5. "Humanism and its Aspirations," at http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm.
6. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6 (W. W. Norton, 1986).
7. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 1993), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; (5th ed. Teachers Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000), pg. 658.
8. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology: Discovering Life (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphasis in original.
9. Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, page. 28 (January 9, 1997).
10. Michael Ruse, “Nonliteralist Antievolution” AAAS Symposium: “The New Antievolutionism,” February 13, 1993, Boston, MA (1993).

Mislukkuðu spár Darwins - Svarti kassinn

Þegar Darwin var að skoða heiminn í kringum sig þá hafði hann ekki möguleika á því að skoða inn í minnstu einingar lífsins, hvernig mörg prótein mynduðu örsmáar vélar sem vinna síðan saman eins og sjálfstæð verksmiðja. Það er á þessu leveli sem reynir mest á trú darwinista, það er hérna sem staðreyndirnar virkilega reyna á trúna og ég skal viðurkenna það að mín kristna trú virðist vera svo ræfilslega lítil og aumingjaleg við hliðina á trú margra darwinista í þessu máli.  Heimur hinna örsmáu véla í lífverum er einstaklega heillandi og framtíðin mjög spennandi í þeim efnum. Ég vorkenni mínum darwinista vinum þar sem hver uppgvötin á fætur annari sýnir ennþá ótrúlegra lag af flókinni hönnun og alltaf verða darwinískar útskýringar grátbroslegri með tímanum. 

 

5. Opening Darwin’s black box.

“Darwin was ignorant of the reason for variation within a species,” writes Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box, “but biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it.”¹ There were other things that Darwin did not know. For example, Darwin assumed that the cell was like a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions. As Behe explains, “To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist of the time, the cell was a black box. ... The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his contemporaries could answer.”²

Modern technology has allowed biochemists to open Darwin’s black box, revealing a micro-world of mind-boggling complexity. Even leading proponents of evolution have acknowledged this complexity. Past U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts has described this complexity in the journal Cell as an elaborate factory: “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”³

But could such integrated complexity evolve in a stepwise, Darwinian fashion? Behe recalls that in Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if “any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."⁴ According to Behe, “by opening the ultimate black box, the cell,” modern biochemistry “has pushed Darwin’s theory to the limit.”⁵

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution – blind natural selection acting on random mutations – has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold stated an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”⁶

Mislukkuðu spár Darwins - Náttúruval

Margir halda að fyrst að náttúruval er raunverulegt afl í náttúrunni að það sanni einhvern veginn darwinisma, að einfaldar sameindir urðu að sjarmerandi bloggurum landsins. Það sem fæstir gera sér grein fyrir er að náttúruval er í eðli sínu eins og delete takkinn á lyklaborðinu eða gæðaeftirlit sem hendir út öllu sem er gallað eða verra en ákveðin staðall. Sem sagt náttúruval er eyðandi afl sem skapar ekki. Hið skapandi afl í darwiniskum fræðum eru tilviljanir, að DNA kóðinn verði fyrir handahófskenndri breytingu og ef breytingin var léleg þá er henni hent.  Til fróðleiks þá var það sköpunarsinninn Edward Blyth sem kom fyrst með hugmyndina um náttúruval og auðvitað tengdi það ekki einhverri ímyndaðri darwiniskri þróun.

Fyrir neðan er greinin. Í von um málefnalega umræðu.

 

3. The role of natural selection in evolution is controversial among scientists.

As noted in the Introduction, PBS asserts that the data “unequivocally” support the view that “[e]volution happens through natural selection.” In this dogmatic statement, PBS has again failed to clearly define “evolution.” If by “evolution,” PBS means that we can observe small-scale changes within species, then no one doubts that natural selection plays a role. But in fact, many scientists have questioned whether natural selection acting upon random mutation is sufficient to generate new species or new complex biological features. As evolutionary scientist Robert L. Carroll queries:

"Can changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"¹

Leading biologist Lynn Margulis, who opposes ID, also criticizes the standard Darwinian mechanism by stating that the “Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric.”² She further observes that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”³

Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook, proclaims, “I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.”⁴ Evolutionary philosopher Jerry Fodor recently wrote that “at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.”⁵ National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell also questions the explanatory utility of natural selection:

Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.⁶

Indeed, over 700 doctoral scientists have signed a public statement proclaiming their agreement that, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."⁷ Yet PBS presents natural selection as the “unequivocally” accepted mechanism of evolution. Clearly there are significant scientific voices who dissent from the Darwinian view. Unfortunately, their voices are left out of PBS’s one-sided discussion of evolution.

 References Cited:
1. Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, page 9 (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
2. Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, page 29 (Basic Books, 2003).
3. Lynn Margulis quoted in Darry Madden, "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006).
4. Stanley Salthe ,quoted in Discovery Institute, “40 Texas scientists join growing national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin,” September 5, 2003. Available: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1555.
5. Jerry Fodor, "Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings," London Review of Books (October 18, 2007) at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html.
6. Philip S. Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist (August 29, 2005), available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2816.
7. See "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

  

4. The role of natural selection in evolution is controversial among scientists. (continued)

As discussed in Slide #1, proponents of Darwinism often employ the “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes and then over-extrapolating to claim that such modest evidence proves Darwin’s grander claims. In fact, this is precisely what PBS does in its online materials for “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”

A PBS web slide asserts, “Evolution happens through natural selection,” and then goes on to discuss small-scale changes in the sizes of beaks in finches on the Galapagos Islands as supporting evidence. Such small-scale changes do not demonstrate that natural selection can cause large-scale evolutionary changes, such as the origin of new body plans or perhaps even the origin of new species. In fact, all of the finch species in the Galapagos Islands remain so genetically similar that they can interbreed after millions of years of alleged evolutionary change.

If anything, the Galapagos finches demonstrate the limits of natural selection. Beak sizes increased during a drought, yet when the drought ended, finch-beaks predictably returned to their normal sizes. As biologist Jonathan Wells observes in Icons of Evolution, the bait-and-switch occurs when “evidence for oscillating natural selection in finch beaks is claimed as evidence for the origin of finches in the first place.”¹ Are such Darwinist extrapolations warranted? According to UC Berkeley law professor and Darwin-critic Phillip Johnson, “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”²

References Cited:
1. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Why Much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, page 174 (Regnery, 2000).
2. Phillip Johnson, "The Church of Darwin," The Wall Street Journal (August, 16, 1999).